This document:Public document·View comments·Disposition of Comments·
Nearby:SYMM Working Group Other specs in this tool
Quick access to LC-1920 LC-1921 LC-1922 LC-1923 LC-1924 LC-1925 LC-1926 LC-1927 LC-1928 LC-1929 LC-1930 LC-1931 LC-1932 LC-1933 LC-1934 LC-1935 LC-1936 LC-1937 LC-1938 LC-1939 LC-1940 LC-1941 LC-1942 LC-1943 LC-1944 LC-1945 LC-1946 LC-1947
Previous: LC-1922 Next: LC-1935
Dear SYMM WG- The SVG WG has reviewed SMIL Timesheets 1.0, W3C Working Draft 10 January 2008, http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-timesheets-20080110/ . We are very interested in SMIL Timesheets, and are pleased by the functionality that this specification provides. We believe that this has a lot of potential in a set of well-defined and common use cases, specifically photo galleries and slideshows, which are increasingly being presented on the Web; the functionality this specification provides will make it much easier to author such content. While we are sympathetic to moving forward quickly to meet market needs, and support the approach that this technology lays out, however, we don't believe this specification itself is in a state suitable for Candidate Recommendation. Most obvious are the large sections stricken through, and there are numerous areas where the normative requirements are not clear, and several grammatical errors. We feel that once these matters are cleared up, though, the specification will be very useful. It does seem mostly focused on XHTML, in general; SVG can be used for the same use cases, so we would like you to please include SVG examples similar to the HTML ones. Finally, while we understand that this is a simplified subset of SMIL functionality meant to be immediately implemented in browsers with a solid market case, we are concerned that it may in places be too simple for what will be desired, particularly in the areas of transitions and navigation, and encourage you to lay the groundwork for future extensions. We have several specific comments and suggestions to follow. To make it easier for you to address our comments, we have split them into individual emails by types or sections. Regards- -Doug Schepers, on behalf of the SVG WG